Don't De-Anonymize Scott Alexander(dontdoxscottalexander.com)
dontdoxscottalexander.com
Don't De-Anonymize Scott Alexander
https://www.dontdoxscottalexander.com/
55 comments
[deleted]
Can anyone please ELI5 what this is about? What does the phrase "Slate Star Codex" mean? Now that all his blog posts were gone, what topics had he generally written about that attracted so much attention?
An archive of his blog can be found here: https://twitter.com/Altimor/status/1275539748686163968
And a popular article was "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" although I think the non-political articles are actually far better (e.g. "My IRB Nightmare": https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VpJS0s...).
One of my favourite articles is actually a work of fiction ("The Proverbial Murder Mystery": https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KNe8Ic...).
And a popular article was "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" although I think the non-political articles are actually far better (e.g. "My IRB Nightmare": https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VpJS0s...).
One of my favourite articles is actually a work of fiction ("The Proverbial Murder Mystery": https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KNe8Ic...).
His short story “Sort by Controversial” was also quite excellent.
He was a blogger who used to blog on controversial issues with somewhat heterodox opinions (not since 2017 anymore though) and generally blogged about interesting stuff, related to cognition and psychiatry; I was somewhat of a fan and thought he was a great writer. He attracted a large community, some of who were a bit, well, let's say "controversial", but it is also one of the most interesting communities I have ever encountered. He was part of the rationalist ideology/movement.
He also wrote Unsong, which is a very interesting work of fiction and blogged about various other stuff.
He also wrote Unsong, which is a very interesting work of fiction and blogged about various other stuff.
[deleted]
Scott said that the NYT was going to publish a piece containing his real name, so he deleted his blog (slate star codex) which at this is point famous.
Plot twist: Scott's real name has been easily findable for at least a year, based on his own words. So I don't understand why he went full nuclear.
It's also an assumption by everybody that the NYT article was going to be a hit piece, even though there's no evidence of that whatsoever. It was simply going to contain his real name. Scott didn't want that. Therefore Scott deleted his entire 5-8 year history because the big bad NYT was going to do something that Scott didn't like that totally wouldn't impact his life anyway.
Look, I'm a big proponent of anonymity. Heck, I was pseudonymous for years. Sometimes there are valid reasons. But often, it becomes a perpetual thing of "I'm doing this for the sake of doing it, not because people are out to get me."
Scott also recently published a piece raising questions about racism (a good piece, worth reading, but nonetheless ruffled some feathers). So this is possibly a well-timed deflection move.
Plot twist: Scott's real name has been easily findable for at least a year, based on his own words. So I don't understand why he went full nuclear.
It's also an assumption by everybody that the NYT article was going to be a hit piece, even though there's no evidence of that whatsoever. It was simply going to contain his real name. Scott didn't want that. Therefore Scott deleted his entire 5-8 year history because the big bad NYT was going to do something that Scott didn't like that totally wouldn't impact his life anyway.
Look, I'm a big proponent of anonymity. Heck, I was pseudonymous for years. Sometimes there are valid reasons. But often, it becomes a perpetual thing of "I'm doing this for the sake of doing it, not because people are out to get me."
Scott also recently published a piece raising questions about racism (a good piece, worth reading, but nonetheless ruffled some feathers). So this is possibly a well-timed deflection move.
Read the single article on his blog, he is not anywhere near fully nuclear. He's just playing a fair game with them, helping NYT "be more considerate". What would they get from this real name policy anyway?
Secondly, the content is not gone, just hidden (and probably reachable elsewhere).
Secondly, the content is not gone, just hidden (and probably reachable elsewhere).
This paragraph puts it succinctly. Especially the last sentence:
When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he said that it was New York Times policy to include real names, and he couldn’t change that. After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. If there’s no blog, there’s no story. Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks.
When I expressed these fears to the reporter, he said that it was New York Times policy to include real names, and he couldn’t change that. After considering my options, I decided on the one you see now. If there’s no blog, there’s no story. Or at least the story will have to include some discussion of NYT’s strategy of doxxing random bloggers for clicks.
[deleted]
> Scott's real name has been easily findable for at least a year, based on his own words. So I don't understand why he went full nuclear.
Findable in the opposite direction, and that is an important difference.
If you know about Scott's private life, you can find his job. But if you only know about his profession and full name, googling for his full name will show you his professional life, not his private life.
There are many Scotts, many Alexanders, even many Scott Alexanders, and some of them are relatively famous (there is a screenwriten, and a baseball player). Unless you already read Scott's blog, there is no reason to assume he would be the same person as the doctor you are looking for, and the blog will not be shown on the first page of results for his full name.
But if NYT publishes the article as originally planned, when Scott's potential patients enter his full name in search engine, the article about him and his blog can easily be the first result. This is exactly the outcome Scott wants to avoid.
Findable in the opposite direction, and that is an important difference.
If you know about Scott's private life, you can find his job. But if you only know about his profession and full name, googling for his full name will show you his professional life, not his private life.
There are many Scotts, many Alexanders, even many Scott Alexanders, and some of them are relatively famous (there is a screenwriten, and a baseball player). Unless you already read Scott's blog, there is no reason to assume he would be the same person as the doctor you are looking for, and the blog will not be shown on the first page of results for his full name.
But if NYT publishes the article as originally planned, when Scott's potential patients enter his full name in search engine, the article about him and his blog can easily be the first result. This is exactly the outcome Scott wants to avoid.
[deleted]
> Plot twist: Scott's real name has been easily findable for at least a year, based on his own words. So I don't understand why he went full nuclear.
He pointed out that there’s a difference between googleable by looking up someone’s words, where you have to do a bit of work to find it, and it being published in the NYT.
> It's also an assumption by everybody that the NYT article was going to be a hit piece, even though there's no evidence of that whatsoever.
Is that the assumption? Again, going by his words (as well as others who were interviewed for it) it was going to be a generally very positive article.
He pointed out that there’s a difference between googleable by looking up someone’s words, where you have to do a bit of work to find it, and it being published in the NYT.
> It's also an assumption by everybody that the NYT article was going to be a hit piece, even though there's no evidence of that whatsoever.
Is that the assumption? Again, going by his words (as well as others who were interviewed for it) it was going to be a generally very positive article.
Be warned that I didn't read the post I'm commenting on, site seems to have succumbed to the high load.
what this is about? NYT was about to run a story about Scott and his blog. By policy, they'd reveal his real name, and they told him so in advance. Scott tried to negotiate, but that failed. So he took down the blog, sort of in protest. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...
What does the phrase "Slate Star Codex" mean? It's the blog title, an almost anagram of "Scott Alexander", missing the "n", doubling the "s". I don't think it has any deeper meaning.
I won't address the final question on the content, others have summarised it.
what this is about? NYT was about to run a story about Scott and his blog. By policy, they'd reveal his real name, and they told him so in advance. Scott tried to negotiate, but that failed. So he took down the blog, sort of in protest. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...
What does the phrase "Slate Star Codex" mean? It's the blog title, an almost anagram of "Scott Alexander", missing the "n", doubling the "s". I don't think it has any deeper meaning.
I won't address the final question on the content, others have summarised it.
https://web.archive.org/web/sitemap/https://slatestarcodex.c...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Alexander
The RationalWiki article isn't very good – they've got an axe to grind against him. There's some information, but treat it like it came out of 4chan.
Why?
RationalWiki (or more precisely its admin) has a strong opinion on which political opinions are the valid ones, and treats other political opinions as pseudoscience. Debating your political opponents is considered a bad thing, because you should not provide them platform to explain their beliefs. The proper way to discuss people who disagree with you is using the "snarky point of view" (yes, this is the official policy).
Scott Alexander is the opposite extreme. He tries to find the good parts even in the Time Cube (yes, literally). Although Scott himself mostly has the usual liberal opinions, he does not enforce them in the comments; he usually only enforces civil behavior. The result is a highly intelligent forum where liberals talk to conservatives, Christians talk to atheists, etc., mostly in a friendly way, on a wide range of topics, some of them political, some not.
Each of these styles is attractive to a different type of personality. Sadly, the former often have a problem with the latter.
Scott Alexander is the opposite extreme. He tries to find the good parts even in the Time Cube (yes, literally). Although Scott himself mostly has the usual liberal opinions, he does not enforce them in the comments; he usually only enforces civil behavior. The result is a highly intelligent forum where liberals talk to conservatives, Christians talk to atheists, etc., mostly in a friendly way, on a wide range of topics, some of them political, some not.
Each of these styles is attractive to a different type of personality. Sadly, the former often have a problem with the latter.
I honestly don't know. RationalWiki seems to hate on anybody even vaguely associated with LessWrong, up to and including misrepresenting their ideas (or outright lying about what people have said and done) so they can more easily criticise them. Their articles are worth reading once, to get a list of Bad Things™ about a person or idea, which you can then filter down into actually true stuff at your leisure.
It's frustrating, because some of the criticism is actually warranted, but they just fill such articles with so much banal nonsense, like "Scott Alexander criticised communism, but also studied something the USSR did… :thinking_face:" (paraphrased) that the signal-to-noise ratio approaches Uncyclopedia's.
It's really frustrating, because the articles about topics they haven't got a bee in their bonnet about can actually be insightful introductions, beating out the Wikipedia articles. Nowadays, though, those are few and far between.
It's frustrating, because some of the criticism is actually warranted, but they just fill such articles with so much banal nonsense, like "Scott Alexander criticised communism, but also studied something the USSR did… :thinking_face:" (paraphrased) that the signal-to-noise ratio approaches Uncyclopedia's.
It's really frustrating, because the articles about topics they haven't got a bee in their bonnet about can actually be insightful introductions, beating out the Wikipedia articles. Nowadays, though, those are few and far between.
This was unexpected (never would occur to me he is a controversial media-person, even though I don't agree with most of what he writes myself), and a pity, since I still have a bunch on his blogposts on my to-read list, that now appear to be gone, but what I actually don't understand is why journalists still have so much freedom to harass people. I'm pretty sure these pesky parasites are responsible for more total length of nerves burnt, than all robbers combined. Is there really no legal action that an ordinary, not massively rich person could realistically take against NYT in such cases?
Being an asshole is often not illegal. The law would be incredibly suffocating if we tried to legislate away everything unpleasant. Also, different subcultures or social classes have different norms; it would be hard to define one model of nice behavior for everyone.
Usually, there is a social punishment for being an asshole. You are not legally required to be nice to people, but the natural punishment is that the nice people will avoid you, you won't get invited to nice parties, etc. The "karmic punishment" for assholes is that they can only associate with other assholes, because everyone else tries to avoid them. Also, unless they are physically very strong, they probably get punched a lot, as a natural reaction.
There are situations, such as online journalism, where the usual mechanisms punishing the assholes do not apply, and it can even become a source of income.
Usually, there is a social punishment for being an asshole. You are not legally required to be nice to people, but the natural punishment is that the nice people will avoid you, you won't get invited to nice parties, etc. The "karmic punishment" for assholes is that they can only associate with other assholes, because everyone else tries to avoid them. Also, unless they are physically very strong, they probably get punched a lot, as a natural reaction.
There are situations, such as online journalism, where the usual mechanisms punishing the assholes do not apply, and it can even become a source of income.
Vice doxxed Naomi Wu a little while back [1]. It seems like reporters are increasingly becoming unethical to push their stories forward (or maybe they were always this unethical?).
[1] https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/127566532567417241...
[1] https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/127566532567417241...
> or maybe they were always this unethical?
The term “Yellow Journalism” is a hundred years old, and I doubt it was new then, either.
The term “Yellow Journalism” is a hundred years old, and I doubt it was new then, either.
In this case, the journalism isn't the thing that changed. It was also possible to dox someone 100 years ago. But unless it was an important person, people would read the paper and quickly forget it.
With search engines, if someone is doxed once, you can find it years later when you search their name. The same behavior now has more serious consequences.
With search engines, if someone is doxed once, you can find it years later when you search their name. The same behavior now has more serious consequences.
Interestingly tied to Pulitzer, for anyone who likes trivia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism#Origins:_P...
Aka "tabloid journalism" [1].
NYT and Vice are not tabloid publications nor are their journalists generally considered to be tabloid journalists.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
NYT and Vice are not tabloid publications nor are their journalists generally considered to be tabloid journalists.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Is this “real name policy” documented anywhere public? I was under the impression that journalists protected confidential sources all the time and a policy of revealing identities could be ruinous to a newspaper’s ability to shine a light on activity happening behind closed doors.
There is a difference between someone who is a confidential source on a story, and someone who is the subject of a story - it appears the NYT argue that those who are a story's subject are fair game for full-naming. However people have found a number of past stories which respect subjects' wishes for pseudonyms or anonymity, so it appears to be a rule that is unevenly enforced at best.
I am going to give the NYT itself the benefit of the doubt and guess that, if there is a policy, it's not one that says that reporters must use real names in situations like this. One would hope that it actually says that reporters MAY use real names, at their discretion.
That said, considering what a crappy track record the press has with respecting the privacy of pseudonymous Internet personalities (I'm thinking Naomi Wu, sure, but also that one article where the author shamelessly put way way way too much work into trying to track down and out _why), perhaps that's pollyannaish of me.
That said, considering what a crappy track record the press has with respecting the privacy of pseudonymous Internet personalities (I'm thinking Naomi Wu, sure, but also that one article where the author shamelessly put way way way too much work into trying to track down and out _why), perhaps that's pollyannaish of me.
SA was being interviewed for an article -- was this detail not discussed beforehand?
Did the NYT violate an informal agreement not to use his real name?
Could SA have reasonably expected that a reporter would not trivially find his real name as part of routine research, and thus include it as background?
SA's wishes should be respected by NYT -- the piece should be abandoned -- but his judgement on entering into an interview in the first place is questionable.
Did the NYT violate an informal agreement not to use his real name?
Could SA have reasonably expected that a reporter would not trivially find his real name as part of routine research, and thus include it as background?
SA's wishes should be respected by NYT -- the piece should be abandoned -- but his judgement on entering into an interview in the first place is questionable.
The interview started with his request that they not disclose his full name. When the reporter declined, contacted his editor and declined again, the interview went no further. They told him they would run the story and disclose his name either way.
That narrative is not expressed in the post here: https://slatestarcodex.com/
Where does your account come from?
If I had to infer what happened from SA's post, it is that he agreed to an interview, did the interview, learned that they intended to use his name, and then raised these objections.
Where does your account come from?
If I had to infer what happened from SA's post, it is that he agreed to an interview, did the interview, learned that they intended to use his name, and then raised these objections.
> But when Metz reached out, Alexander says, he wanted to discuss not these controversies, but the community SSC had built, in a largely positive way. Issues, however, emerged almost immediately.
> "He never got around to asking me questions because I started with asking if the article would include my real name and we didn't get past our argument on that subject," Alexander told the Free Beacon by email. "I explained almost word for word the same things I explained on my recent post. He said he would talk to his editor, then came back saying that his editor said the article couldn't be published without my real name. He said he was really sorry about this and I believe him."
https://freebeacon.com/media/well-known-blogger-shuts-down-s...
> "He never got around to asking me questions because I started with asking if the article would include my real name and we didn't get past our argument on that subject," Alexander told the Free Beacon by email. "I explained almost word for word the same things I explained on my recent post. He said he would talk to his editor, then came back saying that his editor said the article couldn't be published without my real name. He said he was really sorry about this and I believe him."
https://freebeacon.com/media/well-known-blogger-shuts-down-s...
A petition about protecting pseudonymity... and a full name is required to sign it.
It's not analogous because signing this doesn't link your real name to any other names you might use.
I am under the impression that they expect a real name. In fact, they give a section to allow further proof in case you are someone famous, so that someone isn't trying to impersonate you:
"Let us know it's actually you? (Optional) For high-profile signees (CEOs, authors, people with 100k+ twitter followers, etc), we'd like to make sure nobody is impersonating you. Feel free to give us an official email address to confirm (we will not use it for any purpose beyond validation and will not share it with anyone), or link to a public post/tweet where you say you signed this petition."
"Let us know it's actually you? (Optional) For high-profile signees (CEOs, authors, people with 100k+ twitter followers, etc), we'd like to make sure nobody is impersonating you. Feel free to give us an official email address to confirm (we will not use it for any purpose beyond validation and will not share it with anyone), or link to a public post/tweet where you say you signed this petition."
Sure. My point is that signing this with your real name doesn't thereby deanonimize anything else. People will be able to associate your real name with the petition, but nothing else.
Yeah I don't really understand. Is this like....satire? A joke about something that happened before?
I don’t really understand this. You can literally find his name by just asking Google for it. Isnt it already deanonymized?
Or is this about some larger point?
Or is this about some larger point?
He doesn't want to prevent people from finding his real name when they search for 'scott alexander', he wants to prevent people finding his blog when they search for his real name.
He will be fully exposed to harassment if the New York Times prints his name.
There's a large difference between the New York Times printing your name, and it being possible to find your name with careful digging for it.
There's a large difference between the New York Times printing your name, and it being possible to find your name with careful digging for it.
He might be "doxxing" himself in the process. This non-story might have more SEO traction than the story would have.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=...
I'm guessing it's about some much smaller point.
His employer is probably very unlikely to decide one day to idly google, "slate star codex author real name", figure out that it's him, and make any major decisions based on what they find.
However, almost any employer, upon finding itself unexpectedly exposed to frothy-mouthed Internet rancor as a result of a major news outlet writing a story about the online persona of one of its employees, would at least seriously consider firing them over it.
His employer is probably very unlikely to decide one day to idly google, "slate star codex author real name", figure out that it's him, and make any major decisions based on what they find.
However, almost any employer, upon finding itself unexpectedly exposed to frothy-mouthed Internet rancor as a result of a major news outlet writing a story about the online persona of one of its employees, would at least seriously consider firing them over it.
Another thought: this sort of thing has the potential to seriously harm his relationship with his clients. In a way that could be professionally damaging for him, yes, but, even more importantly, could adversely affect the health of his clients.
Scott Alexander is not his full name. His last name is still unknown to the public, and is what Scott doesn't want to release.
His last name is not unknown to the public, but it requires conscious effort to find. Posting it in the NYT is much more significant and means people who google his real identity will find his online one, as well as the reverse.
[deleted]
I signed the petition.
This seems to be the context:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...
Noooooooooooooooo....
He goes by his own full name in a published book, and his chapter names the blog he deleted in the very first sentence.
Why wasn't the outrage over that? Is that because it's a Rationalist Community book, whereas the New York Times is Outgroup?
Why wasn't the outrage over that? Is that because it's a Rationalist Community book, whereas the New York Times is Outgroup?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23610416
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23626449
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23621466
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23617887